PM riding roughshod over civil society

THE EDITOR: It is most interesting that the Prime Minister used the word governance in justifying the move of his office to the Red House. It would appear that he is unaware that an essential ingredient of good governance is the meaningful participation of civil society in national decision-making.

In October 2001, at a multi-stakeholder workshop to prepare the National Report for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, a wide cross-section of the citizenry identified governance and democracy as the most critical national issue. The draft National Report generated by the workshop had this to say about governance: “The people of Trinidad and Tobago are becoming increasingly vocal about governance and democracy, insisting that the framework of political, legal, social and economic systems, processes and institutions must facilitate the inclusion of civil society in developmental decision-making...”

Trinidad and Tobago is classified as a parliamentary democracy, with an electoral process that regulates changeover of Governments. However, being a former colony, it inherited a top-down, centralised form of government that is not readily open to involvement of citizens in their own governance between elections... While civil society has welcomed increasing public consultation and participation, they are not completely satisfied. They view the consultations as being sporadic, inconsistent and superficial with little feedback on their input. They view themselves to be engaged in a reactive fashion and unable to make a true contribution to the decision-making process. They perceive the process to be largely politically driven with insufficient commitment to the ideals of transparency, consultation and participation.”

That language, calling for more citizen involvement and less Cabinet dictatorship in governance, never made it into the final National Report that was laid in Johannesburg, for the PNM Government struck it out. It is no surprise, therefore, to see the Prime Minister and his Cabinet acting true to form in riding roughshod over civil society and handing down to the citizenry their unilateral decision to move the Parliament out of the Red House. Spurred on by the love of good governance and democracy, the Red House petitioners are reacting to this decision. They are calling for more dialogue with proponents of different points of view in the interest of society as a whole. They have a legitimate concern and are insulted when this concern is dismissed as mere brouhaha. Prime Ministers may come and go but Parliament endures. The transient must only be allowed to tinker with the permanent by leave of the people.

EDEN A SHAND
Former Member of Parliament